Broadcasting Diplomacy: How Media Shapes International Relations in the International Community

​

Public diplomacy has a long history as a strategic tool in statecraft, evolving in tandem with the changing global media landscape. Among its most enduring and adaptable components is radio broadcasting, which often mirrors the political climate in times of crisis. As tensions escalate, the urgency and nature of broadcasts shift accordingly, with internal political considerations increasingly influencing the narratives shared with the world.

Media diplomacy, a subset of public diplomacy, has prompted states to reassess their communication strategies, even when these adjustments may not align neatly with national interests. The nature of the crisis, coupled with public pressure, ultimately shapes how and when diplomacy is conducted through the media.

The evolution of public diplomacy can be categorised into three phases. The first phase, which emerged during the Cold War, relied heavily on propaganda.

This was followed by the rise of privately owned global media networks, which shifted the emphasis towards promoting policy goals in international reporting. Most recently, a hybrid model has emerged, characterised by state influence over global broadcasting platforms. This hybrid model integrates strategic messaging with editorial control, making it a potent tool for modern diplomatic efforts (Samuel-Azran, 2013).

​

One of the central discussions around this hybrid model is the use of editorial policies as instruments of public diplomacy. These policies determine not only the selection of content but also the timing and tone of reporting. Conflict coverage, in particular, becomes a carefully managed diplomatic tool, used to influence both domestic and international audiences before, during, and after unrest. The successful application of public diplomacy now hinges on a broadcaster’s ability to manage these editorial components with nuance and consistency.

​

In the Middle East, state–owned broadcasters have played a significant role in shaping foreign policy narratives. These platforms allowed political leaders to communicate their perspectives directly to the public. Over time, the rise of global media networks provided new opportunities for regional powers to influence discourse—particularly as alternatives to dominant Western narratives. This shift enabled countries like Qatar to create platforms that reflected their interests and cultural context.

Maintaining legitimacy in state–influenced broadcasting has become increasingly audience–specific.

This is often achieved by framing reporting around values such as fairness, balance, and objectivity. The concept known as the "CNN effect"—where continuous media coverage influences public opinion and policy—demonstrates the importance of strategic editorial choices. Broadcasters use this phenomenon to project credibility and shape audience beliefs, especially during politically sensitive periods (Samuel–Azran, 2013).

​

Al–Jazeera, Qatar’s flagship media organisation, serves as a case study in this form of diplomacy. While the outlet projects an image of editorial independence, it remains financially and politically tethered to the Qatari state. The channel has received substantial financial backing, suggesting that its operations are closely aligned with national interests. This state support, however, has also enabled Al–Jazeera to operate on a global scale, gaining credibility while advancing Qatari diplomatic objectives.

​

A striking element of Al–Jazeera’s strategy is the clear distinction between its English and Arabic platforms. Many readers have noted that the Arabic–language site often adopts more politically assertive messaging, particularly regarding regional conflicts. In contrast, the English–language platform maintains a more balanced tone, aimed at preserving international credibility. This bifurcation enables Al–Jazeera to cater to specific linguistic and cultural audiences and maximize its diplomatic reach (Samuel–Azran, 2013).

​

The author of the study (where I used the source material from) used longitudinal content analysis to explore these editorial patterns, particularly during the Qatar–Saudi Arabia conflict in 2013—The Gulf Crisis. The analysis tracked shifts in language, tone, and timing, revealing that Al–Jazeera Arabic displayed additional emotionally charged messaging before and during the conflict and this pattern reflected Qatar’s strategic communication priorities at the time.

​

Comparative data highlighted significant differences in coverage between the two platforms. The Arabic broadcasts showed a higher frequency of politically loaded content, particularly in the pre–conflict phase. The English broadcasts, meanwhile, remained more tempered, consistent with Qatar’s desire to maintain an international image of neutrality and professionalism.

​

A key theme in Al–Jazeera Arabic’s reporting was human rights, particularly in relation to Saudi Arabia. The platform frequently covered issues such as political arrests and governmental crackdowns, often portraying Saudi authorities in a negative light. This editorial focus reinforced Qatar’s positioning during the diplomatic dispute and served as a form of media–driven pressure on its regional rival (Samuel-Azran, 2013).

​

The breadth of the analysis—covering nearly 300 articles—provided a comprehensive overview of Al–Jazeera’s editorial approach. The study found that the Arabic channel’s reporting was consistently more partisan, while the English version strategically upheld credibility through more neutral tones. This dual editorial approach allowed Al–Jazeera to simultaneously influence regional sentiment and retain its reputation abroad.

​

This pattern suggests a deliberate strategy: To pursue partisan messaging where appropriate while preserving broader legitimacy. This duality reflects Qatar’s broader soft power approach, in which its media apparatus plays a central diplomatic role. The hybrid model demonstrated by Al–Jazeera is not merely a media tactic—it is an integral part of Qatar’s foreign policy.

Ultimately, this model of international broadcasting reflects the changing dynamics of public diplomacy. Qatar, a microstate with minimal direct involvement in major conflicts, has leveraged its wealth and media infrastructure to wield disproportionate influence.

Its success with Al–Jazeera shows how smaller states can navigate global politics by shaping narratives rather than relying solely on traditional diplomatic channels.

As the media landscape continues to evolve, the hybrid broadcasting model may become more widespread. It allows for precise audience targeting, narrative control, and a balance between national loyalty and international professionalism. In an age where perception can rival power, media diplomacy has become a cornerstone of global statecraft.

​

Notable philosophers:

None​​

Questions from piece: ​​​

• I wrote this piece (or some parts of it) in 2013/2014. With the current world events, do you think much has changed for this definition of statecraft?​

• If you read news sources from different countries, do you see a difference in how the information is portrayed between the two areas?​

• How much influence does a state's (as in country) foreign policy have on reporting on and committing information?

• Do you think this plays a role in how the citizens of that state view the international community?​

​

Please let me know using this direct  [ link ] to the optional forum in the header. Alternatively, you can use any of the email links from the contact [ page ]. If you want to answer the Questions to Consider (not required but you are welcome to!), you can also discuss these questions and answers here. 

​

References:

• Samuel–Azran, T. (2013) Al-Jazeera, Qatar, and New Tactics in State-Sponsored Media Diplomacy, American Behavioral Scientist, 57(9), pp. 1293–1311.